[Jeb]

Re: Countries We Should Nuke?

Mexico

Canada

All of Africa

All of Asia

actually, lets just keep Germany and Hawaii.

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: Countries We Should Nuke?

This is atrocious. The Bible tells us to protect the planet and keep it clean.

Where?

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: Countries We Should Nuke?

2 Chronicles 15:13, I believe by reading its context, especially at 2 Chronicles 15:12, you will see that this is part of the covenant Israel made with God. As I have said a paragraph ago, even with this "oath", they did not go completely berserk attacking each and every pagan nation on their reach. Also, take note that this was the old covenant, and we can read at Luke 22:20 that Jesus made a new covenant. (also read Hebrews 8:6)

I am well aware of the context and none of it contradicts 2 Chronicles 15:13.

Just because the Jews did not obey God's law does not mean we don't have to. They also killed Jesus, remember?

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Countries We Should Nuke?

You people will not be happy until the only people on the planet are white, heterosexual baptists and the Bible is the only law will you?

If that's the way God wants it, then who are you to squawk?

[JohnSmit]

Re: Countries We Should Nuke?

This is exactly why we at Landover Baptist Church are working tirelessly to get a Godly candidate elected president, then he can scrap the secular U.S. Constitution and replace it with the Holy Bible. That's all America needs for it's laws: God's Holy Word! Shout Glory!!

You people will not be happy until the only people on the planet are white, heterosexual baptists and the Bible is the only law will you?

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Countries We Should Nuke?

This is atrocious. The Bible tells us to protect the planet and keep it clean.

Please post the Scripture that backs up your claim. My Bibe tells me not to waste my time worrying about such things, because He is coming back on day soon like a thief in the night to wash away all the perverts and scum.

If we nuke half the nations of the world as some of you suggest, that would virtually destroy the entire planet.

And?

God is a killer. Jesus will return as a warrior. Look at the Book of Revelations and you'll find out that Jesus is going to come back as a killer. And don't you forget that. God will kill a third of the population, a third of the earth, in just a few days. And that's for starters.

Even if you were to take it to the extreme Nazi like levels you are suggesting and perform mass genocide on a country because a handfull of its citizens don't worship God, there are much better ways to do so such as napalm and shelling which would have a much less drastic effect on the planet.

So you're a naplam man, huh? Well why didn't you say so?

[JohnSmit]

Re: Countries We Should Nuke?

This is atrocious. The Bible tells us to protect the planet and keep it clean. If we nuke half the nations of the world as some of you suggest, that would virtually destroy the entire planet.

Even if you were to take it to the extreme Nazi like levels you are suggesting and perform mass genocide on a country because a handfull of its citizens don't worship God, there are much better ways to do so such as napalm and shelling which would have a much less drastic effect on the planet.

[Holyfield]

Re: Countries We Should Nuke?

The only reason Jesus hasn't raptured us yet is because we haven't nuked enough non-believers. Jesus won't return until we have made the world completely unlivable for everyone.

Now listen up! It just took 22000 people three years to build the Atomic Bomb. The Landover Baptist Church is blessed with resources. It owns a 100000 seat amphitheater. If you should put your minds to it, the people of Freehold should in a short time be able to blow the rest of the world to HELL! Then you are free to shape civilization after what is right.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Countries We Should Nuke?

Well, I do not disagree with the "execution of non-believers" "served by the government" if its a legitimate force. What I am questioning, is the legitimacy of the act of declaration of war. In the ancient Israel, declaration of war is explicitly under guidance of God, not on the whims of its leaders. Therefore, even if ancient Israel was surrounded by Pagan worshipers, they did not continuously wage war out of their kings' wishes. Instead, they wait for the guidance given by God.

2 Chronicles 15:13, I believe by reading its context, especially at 2 Chronicles 15:12, you will see that this is part of the covenant Israel made with God. As I have said a paragraph ago, even with this "oath", they did not go completely berserk attacking each and every pagan nation on their reach. Also, take note that this was the old covenant, and we can read at Luke 22:20 that Jesus made a new covenant. (also read Hebrews 8:6)

There we are in agreement; Obama thuggish acts against Somalian saliors and Saudis expatriates in the Pakistan is just whims of a power mad megalomaniac who thinks he is above everyone else and completely different the Bush's godly war against the Iraqis, were the Lord Himself told Mr Bush to destroy that country.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Countries We Should Nuke?

Well, I do not disagree with the "execution of non-believers" "served by the government" if its a legitimate force. What I am questioning, is the legitimacy of the act of declaration of war. In the ancient Israel, declaration of war is explicitly under guidance of God, not on the whims of its leaders. Therefore, even if ancient Israel was surrounded by Pagan worshipers, they did not continuously wage war out of their kings' wishes. Instead, they wait for the guidance given by God.

This is exactly why we at Landover Baptist Church are working tirelessly to get a Godly candidate elected president, then he can scrap the secular U.S. Constitution and replace it with the Holy Bible. That's all America needs for it's laws: God's Holy Word! Shout Glory!!

[librarian]

Re: Countries We Should Nuke?

I don't see where you could possibly find a point of disagreement with the execution of non-believers by an application of institutionally legitimate force, namely, atomic weapons served by the government.

In order to follow the whole Bible, you must follow every part of it. That means 2 Chronicles 15:13 also.

You said yourself that the New Testament does not contradict the Old Testament, didn't you? So that means we must follow every verse. There are no excuses.

Well, I do not disagree with the "execution of non-believers" "served by the government" if its a legitimate force. What I am questioning, is the legitimacy of the act of declaration of war. In the ancient Israel, declaration of war is explicitly under guidance of God, not on the whims of its leaders. Therefore, even if ancient Israel was surrounded by Pagan worshipers, they did not continuously wage war out of their kings' wishes. Instead, they wait for the guidance given by God.

2 Chronicles 15:13, I believe by reading its context, especially at 2 Chronicles 15:12, you will see that this is part of the covenant Israel made with God. As I have said a paragraph ago, even with this "oath", they did not go completely berserk attacking each and every pagan nation on their reach. Also, take note that this was the old covenant, and we can read at Luke 22:20 that Jesus made a new covenant. (also read Hebrews 8:6)

[gods_copilot]

Re: Countries We Should Nuke?

My top ten MOST nukeworthy are:

10.The Middle East (really a country of individual states anyway)
9. France (Really ready to see these rifle-droppers go)
8. North Korea (slipped a few spots since my last rating)
7. The Gambia (peneclaves are disgusting)
6. China (Mr. Spock haircuts and cheap manufacturing capacity make me ill)
5. Brazil (it's best to do it now and just get it over with)
4. Brunei (another peneclave)
3. Australia (I'm really tired of hearing how great they think they are)
2. Iran (Or Persia, whatever)
1. Honduras (I've had BIG problems with the Honduran version of the FAA in the past.)

GOD bless you-

Captain Art

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: Countries We Should Nuke?

we follow his word both in the Old testament and the New testament.

I don't see where you could possibly find a point of disagreement with the execution of non-believers by an application of institutionally legitimate force, namely, atomic weapons served by the government.

In order to follow the whole Bible, you must follow every part of it. That means 2 Chronicles 15:13 also.

You said yourself that the New Testament does not contradict the Old Testament, didn't you? So that means we must follow every verse. There are no excuses.

[librarian]

Re: Countries We Should Nuke?

The quote I posted was entirely pertinent. If Jesus Himself felt moved to rebuke people who wanted to discard the Old Testament then it's quite relevant. I was in no way being flippant, I was finding a core point of your argument disingenuous. To assume I hadn't read anything else was a tad patronising.

Just because you consider yourself to be eminently clever does not mean WE are stupid just because we disagree with you.

I did not consider anyone of you as stupid nor did I consider myself as clever. I considered your question pertinent to my point, had I not answered it earlier.

Also, as a side note, I was merely stating my understanding of the bible. If I see someone correct whilst I am in the wrong, I learn from it and If I believe I see someone in the wrong, I help them learn the truth (in accordance to 2 Timothy 4:2).

I answered that nowhere in my posts have I discarded the Old Testament or labeled it irrelevant in anyway. In fact I said that it is still absolute (not sure of my exact words) and it is the word of God.

But its application and scope was amended by the commands Jesus gave in the New Testament. As a result, we follow his word both in the Old testament and the New testament.
As for examples of amendments and scope changes, there is no longer king's lineages that pass on judgement on God's people, God no longer consider Israel as his nation, there are rules of conduct written by apostles, and there is the example of Jesus shown in the new testament we now should follow.

Taking for example 1 Corinthians 2:15 mentions spiritual man as one that judges all things. This premise is different from the kings and priests of ancient Israel as the role of priests were taken upon by a single tribe and the bible text I just mentioned possibly includes anyone who is a spiritual person enough.
The bible text I mentioned, 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 mentions that God is the one who judges the unbelievers and the congregation can judge persons in their congregation only. This is more in accordance to the premises of the Mosaic Law, giving the priests (deacons, etc..) power to judge His nation (congregation, church) only. Nowhere did I find in the old Testament where the kings or priests or any Israelite standing up on their own volition and waging war of judgement against other nation, unless commanded explicitly by God Himself. Therefore, it also supports the statement that judgement of non-believers are reserved for God.

The discussion I was hoping for was based on my suggestion that these two seemingly contradicting texts of on how modern (starting at early congregations) judgement can be summarized into a single non-contradicting statement so that we can prove that God's word is not at all contradicting.
So, I presented my idea that the usage of the word judgement can be interpreted into different types of judgement (specific meaning lost in translation). The first Bible text can be considered as given knowledge in order to provide a spiritual person capability to judge all things for himself so he can avoid evil and stay on God's course.
The second bible text's judgement can be considered as judicial judgement or judgement done for the purpose of enacting justice.

This argument also made me interested if the meaning of judgement in both texts can simply be lost in translation from their original Hebrew texts. Therefore, if anyone can prove that the words are different in original Hebrew, we can prove in this instance that the bible does not contradict itself. we can then also understand better as to what each text points out.

Putting my infraction aside (I am not ignoring it nor am I not repentant of my misconduct), I hope this thread moves on and if at all possible I wish my idea will be where it leads. I do no care whether I will be proven wrong or not, but what I hope for is that I gain new understanding as a result of contributions from everyone.

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: Countries We Should Nuke?

Sorry to everyone if I offended you by my post, especially on the last few parts. I just thought I was pointing out a common forum etiquette. Again I am sorry.
But as a searcher for truth, I am still hoping for the discussion. Especially if anyone knows the original words used on the scripture I mentioned and the scripture Brother Harold Porter as I think it would help clearing out the apparent self-contradiction.
Before anyone accuses me of accusing the Bible of self-contradiction, I do not believe the bible self-contradicts as it is perfect and the word of God. That is why i want to clear that misunderstanding up, by finding out if the meaning was lost in translation.

The quote I posted was entirely pertinent. If Jesus Himself felt moved to rebuke people who wanted to discard the Old Testament then it's quite relevant. I was in no way being flippant, I was finding a core point of your argument disingenuous. To assume I hadn't read anything else was a tad patronising.

Just because you consider yourself to be eminently clever does not mean WE are stupid just because we disagree with you.